Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, Members of the Committee, my name is Judith Lichtman, and I am Senior Advisor at the National Partnership for Women & Families. Thank you for the opportunity to offer recommendations on ensuring nondiscrimination in employer wellness programs, to be considered today in conjunction with the committee’s hearing.

ISSUE BRIEF | The question before the U.S. Supreme Court in Young v. UPS is whether, and in what circumstances, an employer that accommodates non-pregnant employees must accommodate pregnant employees.

Chair Berrien and Commissioners, my name is Judith Lichtman, and I am Senior Advisor for the National Partnership for Women & Families. We are pleased that the Commission has convened this public meeting and appreciate the opportunity to offer recommendations to promote nondiscrimination in employer wellness programs.

Research clearly shows that there is no connection between credit information and job performance or turnover, yet employers across the country run credit checks as part of their hiring processes. This creates unnecessary and harmful obstacles for women seeking gainful employment to support their families, pay their bills and pull themselves out of debt.

My name is Judith Lichtman, and I am Senior Advisor for the National Partnership for Women & Families. I greatly appreciate this opportunity to speak to you today about the persistent problem of workplace discrimination against pregnant women and caregivers.

This Court and Congress have long made clear that Title VII prohibits both disparate impact and disparate treatment discrimination as coequal and complementary components of the Civil Rights Act’s commitment to equal opportunity in the workplace.

Under the ruling below, an employee cannot challenge pay discrimination resulting from any decisions made before the most recent pay decision prior to the 180-day limitations period under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

For more than 30 years, the National Partnership for Women & Families has been changing the world in ways that make life better for women and their families. From outlawing sexual harassment to prohibiting pregnancy discrimination to giving 50 million Americans family and medical leave, the National Partnership has fought for every major policy advance for women and families in the last three decades.

The more Americans learn about John Roberts, the clearer it becomes that his views are far outside the mainstream. Repeatedly, John Roberts has expressed a narrow and
regressive view of laws protecting women’s rights and civil rights.

The start of each new Congress and Administration provides an opportunity for a fresh start and a fresh approach to critical issues facing our nation. Nowhere is this opportunity more sorely needed than with judicial nominations.

We, the undersigned women’s rights organizations, write to express our strong opposition to the
nomination of Jeffrey Sutton to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Jeffrey Sutton is
an experienced Supreme Court litigator who has gained prominence because of his staunch advocacy in
favor of states’ rights and elevating state sovereignty over Congress’ power to protect civil rights.